you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, graphics do matter. For me, its all about the design of the world of the game.
One of the reasons why I like Fallout 3 just as much as New Vegas despite the writing, combat and quests being inferior is that The Capital Wasteland is just so much more aesthetically pleasing than the drab Mojave wasteland.
Another example: Xenoblade Chronicles. One of the most imaginative worlds I've ever seen in a game; the draw distance is staggering. You'd never think the Wii was capable of these kinds of graphics.
One of the reasons why I like Fallout 3 just as much as New Vegas despite the writing, combat and quests being inferior is that The Capital Wasteland is just so much more aesthetically pleasing than the drab Mojave wasteland.
Another example: Xenoblade Chronicles. One of the most imaginative worlds I've ever seen in a game; the draw distance is staggering. You'd never think the Wii was capable of these kinds of graphics.
Graphics are definitely important, but it should only count against a game when they become a hinderence. Admittedly, immersion is an important part, and bad/outdated graphics can deal a heavy blow to that. It's already been said many times, both in this topic and in other sources like Extra Credits and the Jimquisition, that this is more of a problem with games that try to ape realism.
I've recently been on a bit of a bender of replaying my older games, but only a few have caused me to pause and say "Ooh, crikey that's not aged well". Goldeneye for example is one that hasn't aged well at all. The characters all have weird looks on their faces and move in a really stiff and unreal way, and that brings me right out of the game. Contrasted with another game for the N64 I played again recently; Banjo Kazooie. Game looks fine. A little jaggedy here and there, but it never tried to be realistic, so the graphical inconsistancies get ignored or tuned out.
I also picked up Okami again after a long period of abscense. I bought it around release for the PS2, but I only actually got around to playing it properly in the last month or so. I think the game looks gorgeous, even now 6 years later. Okay, sometimes the deep shadows got in the way, but the game still looks visually stunning.
I've recently been on a bit of a bender of replaying my older games, but only a few have caused me to pause and say "Ooh, crikey that's not aged well". Goldeneye for example is one that hasn't aged well at all. The characters all have weird looks on their faces and move in a really stiff and unreal way, and that brings me right out of the game. Contrasted with another game for the N64 I played again recently; Banjo Kazooie. Game looks fine. A little jaggedy here and there, but it never tried to be realistic, so the graphical inconsistancies get ignored or tuned out.
I also picked up Okami again after a long period of abscense. I bought it around release for the PS2, but I only actually got around to playing it properly in the last month or so. I think the game looks gorgeous, even now 6 years later. Okay, sometimes the deep shadows got in the way, but the game still looks visually stunning.
Seriously,
Graphics are important, but story is important too.
Half Life 2 is simultaneously the worst and best game ever.
Women shouldn't be subjected to sexism.
I am now my avatar.
CoD is brown.
and Mass Effect 3 destroyed your faith in God.
We get it.
I would say good graphics are important but they only need to be up to a standard that allows the gameplay to function and the art direction to attain its goal. So obviously if you are going for photo realism graphics need to be very high if you are going for a very abstract concept involving black and white blocks they dont need to be very high at all.
Graphics are a tool and are important for creation of other things but not actually terribly important on their own sometimes they are hardly needed at all, also good graphics without good art direction will still look terrible.
Graphics are a tool and are important for creation of other things but not actually terribly important on their own sometimes they are hardly needed at all, also good graphics without good art direction will still look terrible.
I love sprites, I absolutely hate those first 3D years where everyone looked like origami done with papier maché with a bit of polio sprinkled on. I can't pretty much stand any N64 game or Playstation game because of this.
Sprite games are some of the best games ever, and most beutifull.
Sprite games are some of the best games ever, and most beutifull.
I agree that graphics are important - to a point. A lot of the argument against graphics is that there are no real improvements to be made with them now. We are at the point where things look real. That's nice, but we are getting a lot of games that don't really *improve* themselves (ref COD franchise) which are very much about the eye candy.
These franchises are not about improving themselves or the quality of gaming, rather than cashing in on one aspect of gaming (that being the visuals).
Whereas other games (RPG's) focus on the storyline/plot/relationships which *can* require more thought (if done well - there is no question these things can be handled poorly - just as graphics can be). Or WOW - which wasn't made for it's graphics or story (who reads all the quests now?) but it's playability.
A balance is needed for all programs, it depends on what you want out of it. I don't care much for the new Escapist layout - for example. Because it makes some aspects of the site less accessible or appear cumbersome. It LOOKS nicer. But I think that's at the sacrifice of substance (which various graphics orientated games are lacking).
These franchises are not about improving themselves or the quality of gaming, rather than cashing in on one aspect of gaming (that being the visuals).
Whereas other games (RPG's) focus on the storyline/plot/relationships which *can* require more thought (if done well - there is no question these things can be handled poorly - just as graphics can be). Or WOW - which wasn't made for it's graphics or story (who reads all the quests now?) but it's playability.
A balance is needed for all programs, it depends on what you want out of it. I don't care much for the new Escapist layout - for example. Because it makes some aspects of the site less accessible or appear cumbersome. It LOOKS nicer. But I think that's at the sacrifice of substance (which various graphics orientated games are lacking).
Graphics can make a good game great but that cannot make a bad game good so yes they are important but story and gameplay should come first.
A game can stand on shitty graphics if it has good gameplay. Even the prettiest game fails as a game if it plays like a bucket of poop.
Graphics are important, sure, but they aren't, by definition, what a game is about. I feel graphics are only important to a certain degree, usually the point where you can tell what everything is. After that, they become a luxury.
Either way:
Graphics are important, sure, but they aren't, by definition, what a game is about. I feel graphics are only important to a certain degree, usually the point where you can tell what everything is. After that, they become a luxury.
Either way:
This so much. At least for me, anyways - also an RPGer here.krazykidd said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here: Ever notice that the closer to life-like the games get, the shittier they turn out to be? I don't just mean in graphics, but in all aspects. I've enjoyed MUCH more out of games such as Wild ARMs, Grandia, Breath of Fire 3 & 4, Chrono Trigger, Legend of Mana, Megaman Legends and LoZ: Link to the Past. Graphics are a part of a game and should be given some attention...but NOT something to base your entire game upon. IMO anyways.
I'll be happier about graphics once we get past the uncanny valley. But yeah, they are very important, at least to some people (like me for example!). Ya know what annoys me more than repeated threads about the same topic (which to be fair could be because the search function on these forums is a little iffy) it's the "Oh look this thread again people". Seriously, if you don't want to talk about it, why the hell are you even posting in the thread? To increase your post count? To increase your ponce elitist status? Just leave people who want to talk about something alone. Jesus.
I couldn't care less about graphics, really. I've been playing GBA and DS games a lot lately, plus some old, old, old PC titles I have on floppy. I can get into them and enjoy them as much as, say, Crysis (which I loved).
oh, that mod looks coolrhizhim said:
if there was a magic mod to fix the issues I have with Deus Ex.....
I love gameplay...obviously, but I'm just being honest here....to really lose myself in the world I like things to look....well to look nice, polygons and boxes are too distracting for me..thats not really somthing I can help
It can be sometimes brutal to go back to the classics of old, but often I find that after the initial 'shock' has gone away I will start to enjoy the graphics again. I'm currently playing FFVI, and the entire world there is ten times more beatiful and imaginative than anything found in FFXIII. Also, when playing an old school game for a longer period of time, to the point where you are totally into it, your mind sort of paints the game prettier than it really is. Due to the limitations of the graphics, you are left to fill in the blanks so to speak, to use your imagination a bit, much like what happens when you are reading a book.
In the end, if the art direction is poor, or the gameplay/story fails to really draw you into the game, it does not matter how good graphics you have; the game will still suck. Which is why I never ever got excited by seeing a tech demo, or bothered to play Crysis for example.
In the end, if the art direction is poor, or the gameplay/story fails to really draw you into the game, it does not matter how good graphics you have; the game will still suck. Which is why I never ever got excited by seeing a tech demo, or bothered to play Crysis for example.
I've always sort of thought this whole discussion arose from someone who had the opportunity to play an old game from their past and they still enjoyed it immensely, and thus, graphics don't matter since they still enjoy a game they enjoyed when they were younger.
I'll echo what everyone else has said, while being important, they are not the most important piece of a game.
In fact, nothing is "the most important part" of a game.
All the aspects of a game should be represented equally and given as much care and development as the other.
In my own experience, it tends to favor my mood.
Some days I can load up older games, and some days I just don't want to see or deal with blurry un-detailed levels/worlds/models.
I'll echo what everyone else has said, while being important, they are not the most important piece of a game.
In fact, nothing is "the most important part" of a game.
All the aspects of a game should be represented equally and given as much care and development as the other.
In my own experience, it tends to favor my mood.
Some days I can load up older games, and some days I just don't want to see or deal with blurry un-detailed levels/worlds/models.
They really messed that up. The original is much creepier--just look at that face! The former seems like something at home in Silent Hill, while the latter looks like a corridor crawler from Doom 3--a.k.a.: cheesy and silly. The original also genuinely looks like a human that's been "infected" by the machine, left as a haunting shell void of humanity--a robot wearing human skin. The spindly legs feel almost insect like. You can imagine it sporadically twitching around the halls and rattling the cold steel. The Rebirth model, on the other hand, looks like it's trying way too hard to get that look. The arm is cliche, the breasts are stupidly large, the eyes don't look anywhere near as creepy and the wires coming out of the chest are something young kids would suggest to make it look more like a robot.rhizhim said:
/rant
The graphics in Silent Hill were extremely important. The mist, the wonky camera, the distorted sound, and grainy graphics, all helped create the terrifying atmosphere. Which is why Silent Hill as well as every other survival horror game doesn't work in this generation, because everything is too slick, clean, and cinematic to create any suspense or tension.Zouriz said:
OT: Coincidentally I recently bought the Ratchet & Clank HD collection. And while the PS2 graphics are upgraded to a nice high definition, it still has those sharp polygon corners that can take a man's eye out. Right after I finished R&C3 (the best one in the series) I went straight into R&C: Tools of Destruction for the PS3. And while the graphics looked amazing, the story and the characters had lost all of their wit and humor.
So yes, graphics are important, but not the most important. It's an important bridge to initially help you get into a game, but after the stardust of the high end graphics settles down the game's "personality" will have to take over from there. And no matter how graphically impressive a game looks, if it has no personality it won't draw you in.